Electrophysiological Testing for an Auditory Processing Disorder and Reading Performance in 54 School Students Aged Between 8 and 12 years

Abstract

BACKGROUND Learning to read and write depends on the effective functioning of various sensory systems, including the auditory system. Auditory information processing involves behavioral and electrophysiological processes. Electrophysiological procedures are used to investigate activity in the auditory pathway in response to sound stimuli, and the associated cortical activity in discrimination, integration, and attention. The study evaluated electrophysiological testing for an auditory processing disorder and reading performance in 54 school students aged between 8 and 12 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study involved 54 public school students aged between 8 and 12 years, who were divided into a study group and control group. All children underwent basic audiological assessment, rating of reading and writing ability, non-verbal intelligence, auditory brainstem response, long-latency auditory-evoked potentials (LLAEP), frequency following responses (FFR), and auditory training (AT). RESULTS The basic audiological evaluation showed a statistically significant difference between groups only for the frequency of 6 kHz. The LLAEP response had a statistically significant difference between groups for N1 latency, P300 latency, and amplitude. Finally, there was a statistically significant difference between pre-AT and post-AT to LLAEP for latencies of P2, N2, and P300 and amplitudes of N2 and P300, and to FFR for latency of wave C. CONCLUSIONS This study showed that electrophysiological tests are sensitive tools for identifying deficits in the auditory pathway. Moreover, latency measures can detect improvements from an auditory training program. In this way, an auditory intervention program might help children with reading and writing difficulties.

Figure 1

Long-latency auditory-evoked potentials non-verbal latency values according to the moment of the evaluation and component. The error bars represent the 95% confidence interval. SGI – study group I; SGII – study group II; CG – control group; RE – right ear; LE – left ear.

Figure 2

Long-latency auditory-evoked potentials verbal latency values according to wave component and moment of evaluation. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals. SGI – study group I; SGII – study group II; CG – control group.

Figure 3

Frequency following responses values according to the moment of the evaluation and component. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals. SGI – study group I; SGII – study group II; CG – control group.